Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc., (1993) 147 N.R. 169 (SCC)

• Judge: La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1993), 147 N.R. 169 (SCC);JE 93-270;[1993] CarswellOnt 801;[1993] SCJ No 3 (QL);1993 CanLII 146 (SCC);[1993] 1 SCR 87;99 DLR (4th) 626;147 NR 169;14 CCLT (2d) 113;37 ACWS (3d) 1304;15 CR (4th) 87;60 OAC 1;45 CCEL 153;[1993] ACS no 3

Queen v. Cognos Inc. (1993), 147 N.R. 169 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Douglas J. Queen (appellant) v. Cognos Incorporated (respondent)

(No. 22004)

Indexed As: Queen (D.J.) v. Cognos Inc.

Supreme Court of Canada

La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.

January 21, 1993.

Summary:

Queen, a chartered accountant, applied for a job to work on a computer project with Cognos Inc. He was given an interview wherein various aspects of the project were discussed. He was not told that funding for the project had not yet been approved by head office. He was offered a managerial job on the project, which required him to move from Calgary to Ottawa. He signed an em­ployment contract which provided, inter alia, that his job could be terminated on one month's notice or he could be reassigned to another job without a salary reduction on one month's notice. Within five months of his move, head office considered and cur­tailed the project. He was reassigned to another job and terminated after 1½ years' employment. He sued Cognos Inc. for dam­ages for negligent misrepresentation, claim­ing that he only accepted the job because of the representations made to him in the inter­view.

The Ontario High Court of Justice, per White, J., in a decision reported (1987), 63 O.R.(2d) 389; 18 C.C.E.L. 146, allowed the action. Cognos Inc. appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a decision reported (1990), 38 O.A.C. 180; 74 O.R.(2d) 176; 69 D.L.R.(4th) 288, allowed the appeal, set aside the trial decision and dismissed Queen's action. Queen appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the decision of the trial judge.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508

Misrepresentation - Negligent misrepre­sentation - Queen was interviewed for a managerial job on a computer project - During the interview the project was dis­cussed, but he was not told that the project funding was not yet approved - He was offered the job - The employment contract provided for termination or reassignment on one month's notice - He moved from Calgary to Ottawa and gave up a secure well-paying job to work on the project - Within five months the project was cur­tailed - He sued for damages for negligent misrepresentation - The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the action, holding that the situation was not one of concurrency; rather the tort was independent of the contract and the liability was not limited by the exclusion clauses in the contract - See paragraph 1.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508

Misrepresentation - Negligent misrepre­sentation - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to five general requirements for a successful action for negligent misrepre­sentation (Hedley Byrne doctrine) - See paragraph 33 - The court thereafter dis­cussed in detail the application of this doctrine to representations made by employers during pre-contractual negotia­tions - The court also discussed the situa­tion where an employment contract is signed subsequent to negligent misrepre­sentations - See paragraphs 34 to 95.

Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2515

Misrepresentation - Concurrent liability in contract and tort - [See both Fraud and Misrepresentation - Topic 2508 ].

Cases Noticed:

BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1993), 147 N.R. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1 et seq.].

Hedley Byrne & Co. v. Heller & Partners Ltd., [1964] A.C. 465 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 18 et seq.].

Burrows v. Burke (1984), 49 O.R.(2d) 76 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

Carman Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and C.P. Rail, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 958; 42 N.R. 147, refd to. [paras. 25, 30, 37, 38, 46, 61, 84, 86, 88].

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Metropolitan Corp. of Greater Winnipeg, [1971] S.C.R. 957, refd to. [para. 30].

J. Nunes Diamonds Ltd. v. Dominion Electric Protection Co., [1972] S.C.R. 769, refd to. [paras. 30, 80-83].

Rivtow Marine Ltd. v. Washington Iron Works, [1974] S.C.R. 1189, refd to. [para. 30].

Hodgins v. Hydro-Electric Commission of Nepean (Township), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 501; 6 N.R. 451, refd to. [paras. 30, 55].

Porky Packers Ltd. v. The Pas (Town), [1977] 1 S.C.R. 51; 7 N.R. 569, refd to. [para. 30].

Haig v. Bamford et al., [1977] 1 S.C.R. 466; 9 N.R. 43, refd to. [para. 30].

Mason (V.K.) Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia and Courtot Investments Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 271; 58 N.R. 195; 8 O.A.C. 381; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 598; 35 R.P.R. 118, refd to. [paras. 30, 37, 59].

Rainbow Industrial Caterers Ltd. et al. v. Canadian National Railway Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 3; [1991] 6 W.W.R. 385; 126 N.R. 354; 3 B.C.A.C. 1; 7 W.A.C. 1; 8 C.C.L.T.(2d) 225; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 129, refd to. [paras. 30, 37].

Steer v. Averovox Inc. (1984), 65 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 147 A.P.R. 91 (T.D.), refd to. [paras. 31, 75].

Wooldridge v. Nickerson (H.B.) & Sons Ltd. and Canso Seafoods Ltd. (1980), 40 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 73 A.P.R. 388; 115 D.L.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 55].

Williams v. School District No. 63 (Saa­nich) (1986), 11 C.C.E.L. 233 (B.C.S.C.), affd. (1987), 17 C.C.E.L. 257 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 31, 71, 72].

Grenier v. Timmins Board of Education (1984), 26 A.C.W.S.(2d) 285 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 31, 59].

Pettit v. Prince George & District Credit Union (1991), 35 C.C.E.L. 140 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

Roy v. B.N.P.P. Regional Police Commis­sion (1986), 72 N.B.R.(2d) 19; 183 A.P.R. 19; 15 C.C.E.L. 167 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

Esso Petroleum Co. v. Mardon, [1976] 2 All E.R. 5 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 37, 47].

Sodd Corp. Inc. v. Tessis (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Kingu v. Walmar Ventures Ltd. (1986), 38 C.C.L.T. 51 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Central Trust Co. v. Rafuse and Cordon, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 147; 69 N.R. 321; 75 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 186 A.P.R. 109; 42 R.P.R. 161, refd to. [paras. 39, 41, 80, 83, 92].

Caparo Industries v. Dickman et al., [1990] 1 All E.R. 568; 108 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 45].

Mutual Life and Citizen's Assurance Co. v. Evatt, [1971] A.C. 793 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Howard Marine and Dredging Co. v. Ogden (A.) & Sons (Excavations) Ltd., [1978] Q.B. 574 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Shaddock & Associates Pty. Ltd. v. Parra­matta City Council (1981), 150 C.L.R. 225 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Blair v. Canada Trust Co. (1986), 38 C.C.L.T. 300 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

Koch v. Nelson Lumber Co. (1980), 2 Sask.R. 303; 13 C.C.L.T. 201 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Fine's Flowers Ltd. v. General Accident Assurance Co. (1974), 5 O.R.(2d) 137 (H.C.), affd. (1977), 17 O.R.(2d) 529 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 59].

Hendrick v. De Marsh and Brennan et al. (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 463, affd. (1986), 13 O.A.C. 62; 54 O.R.(2d) 185 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 59, 75].

Anderson (W.B.) & Sons Ltd. v. Rhodes (Liverpool) Ltd., [1967] 2 All E.R. 850 (Liverpool Assizes), refd to. [para. 59].

Hayward v. Mellick (1984), 45 O.R.(2d) 110, refd to. [para. 61].

Datile Financial Corp. v. Royal Trust Corp. of Canada (1991), 5 O.R.(3d) 358 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72, 75].

Foster Advertising Ltd. v. Keenberg and Manitoba (1987), 45 Man.R.(2d) 1; 38 C.C.L.T. 309 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72].

Andronyk v. Williams et al. (1985), 36 Man.R.(2d) 161; 35 C.C.L.T. 38 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 71, 72].

Minister Administering the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 v. San Sebastian Pty. Ltd., [1983] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 268 (C.A.), affd. (1986), 68 A.L.R. 161 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 74].

BG Checo International Ltd. v. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (1990), 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 74].

Banque Financière de la Cité SA v. West­gate Insurance Co., [1989] 2 All E.R. 952, affd. [1990] 2 All E.R. 947 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 75].

Doherty et al. v. Allen, Allen's Service Station Ltd. and Irving Oil Ltd. (1988), 94 N.B.R.(2d) 74; 239 A.P.R. 74; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 746 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75].

Carman Construction Ltd. v. Canadian Pacific Railway Co. and C.P. Rail, (1981), 33 O.R.(2d) 472 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Fleming, John G., The Law of Torts (7th Ed. 1987), pp. 96-104 and 614 [para. 55].

Klar, Lewis N., Tort Law (1991), pp. 159, 160 [para. 55]; 162 [para. 37].

Linden, Allen M., Canadian Tort Law (4th Ed. 1988), pp. 105-119 [para. 55]; 400-404 [para. 47].

Counsel:

Peter J. Bishop and Tom Brooker, for the appellant;

Charles T. Hackland and Mark Josselyn, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Peter J. Bishop & Associates, Ottawa, Ontario, for the appellant;

Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 29, 1992, before La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on Jan­uary 21, 1993, including the following opin­ions:

La Forest, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring) - see para­graph 1;

Iacobucci, J., concurring reasons (Sopin­ka, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 2 to 95;

McLachlin, J., concurring reasons - see paragraphs 96 to 103;

Stevenson, J., took no part in the judg­ment.